GEM Collaboration Council Meeting GEM TN-91-31 GEM Collaboration Council Meeting November 7, 1991...

Click here to load reader

download GEM Collaboration Council Meeting GEM TN-91-31 GEM Collaboration Council Meeting November 7, 1991 Abstract:

of 156

  • date post

    13-Mar-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    2
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of GEM Collaboration Council Meeting GEM TN-91-31 GEM Collaboration Council Meeting November 7, 1991...

  • GEM TN-91-31

    GEM Collaboration Council Meeting

    November 7, 1991

    Abstract:

    Agenda and transparencies contributed to the GEM Collaboration Council Meeting held on November 7, 1991.

  • AGENDA

    GEM Collaboration Council Meeting

    November 7, 1991

    General Status of GEM (Barish)

    Status of Hadronic Scintillator Calorimeter Choice (Brau)

    LOIRcports Overview (Willis) Hall and Services (Sanders) Magnet (Stroynowski) Muons (Taylor) Calorimeters (Brau) Inner Tracking (Baltay) DAQ/Computing (Marlow) Computing (McFarlane) Physics Questions (P~$C) Costs/Schedules (Sanders) Management (Samios)

    R&D/Enginccring Requests (Baltay)

  • c 0 llo.bo f'A .,.,~ Co IA IAC.i J Mee._,~

    Nov " l ttcr I

  • S~~c.e.-."'1H~e: L ...... +" ~rtiJc."' •·~ Da"'; lov Wo It-

    Rev ct~ .' V-e.t:; "or i ~ '" i. l)J,

    CD M _ _, "' .. e:. - s ~"'!> F, e ,~ © Oc.c,,_,.,...J to..~ 11"':;..,

  • • Rep ... t- S •• ,tt Tr1e •

    S,,.p,.Jc4uv j D"'~~• j liEP Mt>JU>l41 st~ .I (;Alt:J, I~ J •••

    _ MuotJ St1sre"f. -

    k' w Y"J.4' f 0 V J J:: ( r ~ ,,,_ O\J

    - /1•j"'c,t -

  • • •

    -- - - ~~ Tw+J .$ IS-H NHI C..ktl'• .. ., Pl•,,. J 0\1..Jaic ?

    ··' T·.l~ ', (•.P l.--· ti' &I t ~~,_ 1 Ckt"' ~ 1.,.,i, ..

    1-tuc-t.At / W& '-It _.:l +

    .sv-&..,M.J ·-~ ............ .....__

  • (/ #

    , - ,.,,., R,j $~ c

    (. J.114.tc. ( ,,_,~ k k r)

    • CA~oA. 1 "&-rsR.J

    * .,.""• ! M &a.Fa.

    , ex pM"t P" ., J 1> .. F-a.. R, cl 'D,, *•,_.

    • ..s~' ~ + H-." 'D• c.1.11 ,..., CGC"4it1..)

  • p

    M EE T"1N(S ' J

    \..-.--------------~

    1'4c. s- +- ( PJI c. Die ,,.fd

    cc M~j ~~ 23 .. (rcssc M.,J,.".'

    be" Co 11.J, M+J M•r~/.. 8 • J / Twes,,_.,

  • GEM SCINTILLATOR

    HCAL DECISION

    PRINCIPAL ISSUES

    • Relative Cost

    • Likelihood of a Module Ready for testing in 1992

    • Longitudinal Sampling

    • Relative Complication of Assembly, and Maintenance In Situ

    lJJ /.)

    :::r> e- r-

  • po-.1AJG- TH£ PAST MON-rH

    1Mf TWo ~-.ouf's ( t. s + s ~)

    f.fA\IC 1>EVf c..6Pt D I+ COl'f.M 6 Al

    (I.. .,.1) Pt ~A)

    A c.Aft(E° FflAc.TtoAJ •F- T~c

    C.ot.c..A 6 e>~.A Tb~ J wo-.tc1A)6 oAJ

    .11-1 tr -re C.MAJoc.. 0 c y AJo.,. C..4" c Sf~ N. Wt~t., 1'b1AJ IN OAJ 1M C.

    ~"'otEAi e F1-·c~r

  • Principal Reasons to Choose a LS HCal

    Yu. KamvshkOY/ORNL Nov.S SSCL

    "1 Status of LS HC system I mechanics

    'ti Radial extention I absorbtion length

    'ti Longitudinal segmentation

    41 Prototype for beam tests in 1992

  • Reasons to Choose Scintillating Fibers

    over Liquid Scintillator for Hadron Calorimeter

    1) Should choose technology for which prototypes have been built and tested

    SPACAL -- 6 different prototypes built and tested 8 publications in NIM, 2 CERN reviews

    13 Tons operational in Omega

    SSCintCAL -- 3 different prototypes, 2 tested 2 SSC R & D reviews, 1 TNRLC review

    JETSET -- 300 modules operation over 1.5 years

    Liquid Scintillator -- No large prototypes.

    2) 15-Ton Hadron shower-containing prototype complete by June 1992

    Using existing infrastructure to build new modules 4 years into design and test beam program

    Liquid scintillator R & D program much less developed Insufficient time to design and test by November 1992

  • I

    3) Strength/Experience of Scintillating Fiber team

    4)

    SPACAL (for EAGLE@ LHC?) • 15% US Contribution • $2.SM effort • 30 collaborators

    SSCintCAL (for GEM @ SSC) • $0.5M received in FY90 • $0.7M received in FY91 • $0.9M requested for FY92 • 40 collaborators/ 9 institutions

    LS Collaboration (for GEM @ SSC?) • $1.IM requested for FY92 • 72 collaborators (35 US) I 8 institutions (5 US)

    ~ • ITEP commitment to SSC/GEM?

    Additional option for EM calorimetry (~~ coS}) . .......':Mlt~~

    SF provides 6%/sqrt(E) backup to BaF2 and LAr

    LS high-resolution undeveloped

    S ) Cost differences between liquid and fibers are within the errors between Draper and ORNL cost estimates

    Small cost differential coupled to projectivity for SF 3 Draper and I Martin Marietta reports Explicit bids coming from industry

    Second(review )of LS costing yet to be done

  • ¥ ) e.. e 7i s~ 'f t:I& r'L {,c n

    .S PA C "11- ) S « "f 41 .,. -.. ..Jc. E" "'f. 't ) t! cc. )< ... :)'~

    n,. e. d. .ff l., k e ri t:.~ 1;-~- ( 8 c..~ pr-·~ .. cl. ;'"«14~-1)

    I So I .. ..JI o I\ C''-' f-

    enf!"'JY losJ £0.rre c..li·ori fsc.e. s-l~d;t}

    pt:A. f-f~rf\ ,..~ C..•j "' 'l-1• "\ (""' se~ ,·... L. ~ )

    v• -1-o ( c..cscJ 1 '

    p .. "' ~ l +t~--a " 'f\ of "'i.e ~

    m ' s~ \ 11 r) . ET

    u) pp? Mo ~~'-10,, ( b) ,·"' L. ~ ( 11. 1 A~

    • -.#

    t~- ... .,

    "' ':' ..., .,# ._ I "' .. d 0 a.. .2 ~

    7 .

    /-e ft I

  • a e +r e. I\ ll 'J,>' c O't r f. c... +.bl\

    f'e. d ""t\ d "',.. c.y

    -(.r4.Jce.r i>t~

    E c.""-I c>t f ( o_...f )

    r- Jl."" ~ ... s of F

    ? .

  • l.Je.. d .:>~ 1-I: t-~\i>r.... Jy $~ ..,,, ~ ~ -/-/() "'*

    lkt.. (~D) pc...f.'f.,,.h. "'"o""1 ,,,, I'"' '" ~ ,.-c-

  • M iss1n3 [r 1(~so lt.c...iict'\ d.nJ Tai ls _,u..I

    ,..- - -

    EM .. M"Sl1 - NAoa. ...... f.IAD'l --

    ~

    1) L.lo.. ci~i~ .sho~u-~ CAl~~iuk.. ./a Ji,ls ~) C"'aJ.s/1)~ Ma~·,J u~lr\L~ ~ "f'e.soUe"

    h (/;&V)

  • Lio Sclnt SJ!!l!!!.tl Difference CatHory

    1.00 R&D $5.494 ."" ..... - Laraer •• -· l.M Conceotunil J!!!!l.n 1485 $405 Same

    3.00 Towers 11•--· $2'.114 ~Hll!JiiMIMM'l Celt . •Sense Material) - SS.75' . Fllller a. Lla•ld 4.00 Rln• Modules $$.032 .. "' ....... .!1!!1!!!!!! Has M ... Co • -

    5.00 Electronics $1~ JM!! . .Y&!ld Has More Cbllllnell 6.00 Thermal Cont $1.166 $1.166 Sa•

    7.00 Beam Testln.J!Callb. $2.077 52.r71 Same

    8.00 System Alam:.:. Sl.033 51.916 11-ld HM Mere ASlemblJ ODs.

    9.00 Installatlon $3,480. ........ .., s · ti Has More Co . Sbaoe 10.00 Project Mana1ement $4.689 $4,"9 Same

    DIRECT COST $55.042 S69,474 CONTINGENCY 26.12.,. 21.72 .. TOTAL $69,419 $89,427

    Mark Rennlch/Oak Ridge NallOftal Llboratory/11·4·91

  • Cost Estimate Differences CDSL/ORNL

    1) Fiber Materials, $ 8.3M ORNL Threading, - 5.lM CDSL

    Preform Preparation - - - - - - - 10.3% fiber vs. 16.7% $ 3.2M

    28.72% Contingency x 1.11 R&D x 1.43 = $4.6 M

    2) Top Support Plate 5168 @ $310 each (Machined) $ 1.6M ORNL 5168 @ $70 each (Zinc Cast) -0.4M CDSL

    $ 1.2M x 1.43 = $1.7 M

    3) Module Fabrication (Manufacturing Segmentation) .08 x .08 Supertowers

    $1.6K/Supertower $ 8.IM ORNL .16 x .16 Supenowers

    $4.4K/Supertower - 5.7M CDSL

    4) Sheathing Sheet Metal Jackets

    5168 @ $400 each Larger Sheaths

    1300 @ $1000 each

    5) Support Structure Inner + Outer Rings

    ($12/lb x 85T) Inner + Outer Rings ($8/lb x 60T)

    TOTAL ABOVE

    $ 2.4M x 1.43 = $3.4 M

    $ 2.lM ORNL

    - I.3M CDSL

    $ 0.8M x 1.43 = $1.lM

    $ 2.2M ORNL

    - I.IM CDSL

    $ I.IM x 1.43 = $1.6M

    = $12.4M

  • OPINIONS ~A~f&P

    r:o.ea.M: 'e,Ad.4.:r e:+at' vc.l1.tcc.cl SI= c~.if.fere.Nces f-o ~ 5°/o.

    Pl•SCt Ttwf' - .f ovo"f' St=

    LOM '1T~01N~c. .S A"tP'-1#6 .. -f•~ott~ 1..$ ~od.et"'o.kJ b~ po3sil,il.+y of lon:J. So.111pl.

    w i -Mt s I==' ~A1"'-•T1 oF TC'tMNotoC)' - .fe."9f'tfl ~F

    + •+"~_.,. Vt&Y c.e..osE CA'-'-

    ~C. ,,.ouP C.O~MIS,IONS'.P

    "'tou, o~ NINE" 1t> ~A l&f 'M OIC.E'

  • GEM SCINTILLATOR

    HCAL DECISION

    Group of Nine Meeting (Only if Necessary)

    B. Barish, W. Willis, J. Brau, R. Adair, L. Sulak, H. Paar, F. Plasil, Y. Kamyshkov, H. Newman

    3:15 Meeting Opens

    6:15 or Before Scintillator HCAL Decision

  • C~teE:

    sc.1AJTIL'-.4T1AJc;. P.1 BE~

    ( ~rwp IS u1'u ~ ,Ae~e,fop GI'\

    -. ~.,_, J-.~ le.. sc.t.••e.. 4r So Me

    lo"'; 1t,, tA ;,,. •I $0.-. r I;.,.'.) '

    co1JT1AJUSJ Wo&lf. I\ :- r. ~- .'? .. ,~ ! :._· G To l>A y'

    O/J Gf /1 SC.I Fl CAL6«.r'4t11

    BY A LArt4elL AN() ~'rftt>N~f,C.. IEAM,

  • I jJ

    1 I 1 I f ! s5f ss11l

    I .~i~i~~i~l~~i~ij~~~

    c; - Y()s+

  • A-~~ t~,fArf::r/OA/.1 1'"0 .trC L r/(t)Af

    cd~r»c. r ~~ol'J.r dNt. y .

    .4 ( L- Ct41(/( F"e r1 Cl N .s IN TN r ,t:

  • the muon momentum resolution, dp/p, as dp/p • ap + b, where the "+" symbol denotes addition in quadrature. The "b" term, dependent on multiple scattering in the middle module and pseudorapidity, limits the resolution at low momentum. The "a" term, which depends primarily on pseudorapidity, is determined by systematic